SPA/289/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 2210 UK

                   Office Notes,
                      reports,
                     orders or
                   proceedings
SL.
         Date      or directions                       COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
                        and
                    Registrar's
                    order with
                    Signatures
      11.08.2023                   SPA No. 289 of 2023
                                   Hon'ble Vipin Sanghi, C.J.
                                   Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondent nos. 1 & 3.

3. Counsel for the respondents does not fairly oppose the application seeking condonation of delay of 466 days in preferring the present Special Appeal. Delay Condonation Applicaiton (IA/01/2023) is, accordingly, allowed, and the delay in preferring the present Special Appeal is, hereby, condoned.

4. The present Special Appeal is directed against the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2190 of 2007 dated 28.03.2022, whereby the said Writ Petition of the appellant has been dismissed.

5. The appellant had preferred the said Writ Petition to claim additional compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs, which was payable to persons, whose business premises were acquired for construction of the Tehri Hydro Dam Project, and who voluntarily surrendered the same in terms of the Government Order dated 07.07.2001, bearing No. 704/2001.

6. The case of the appellant was that he had duly surrendered the possession of his shop premises voluntarily, and he was also issued a certificate in this regard, namely, क�ा / ��ीकरण प्रमाण - पत्र on 21.10.2001 by the concerned department. The said certificate was filed by the appellant, along with the Writ Petition as well. The Writ Petition was, however, dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the premise that the appellant could not be said to have abided by the scheme contained in the Government Order dated 07.07.2001, inasmuch as, he did not offer the possession voluntarily within three months of the issuance of the said Government Order.

7. We find the stand of the respondents to be very unreasonable. The certificate issued to the appellant reads as follows :-

8. A perusal of the certificate itself would show that the authority taking possession had recorded that the appellant was entitled to claim additional compensation. The facts, emerging from the record, also show that the appellant was not operating a shop, and it was lying closed. There was no reason why the appellant would not have surrendered the possession of his shop within three months to claim additional compensation. There is nothing else attributable to his conduct, to say that he resisted surrendering of his shop to the concerned authorities.

9. The view taken by the learned Single Judge, in our view, was hyper-technical. The Government scheme was a beneficial scheme, and its benefit could not be denied merely because the respondent-authorities may have taken more than three months to take over the possession from the appellant.

10. We, therefore, allow the present Special Appeal, and set aside the impugned order. We direct the respondents to pay to the appellant additional compensation payable in terms of the aforesaid Government Order dated 07.07.2001, bearing No. 704/2001, within four weeks.

11. The appellant shall also be paid interest from 01.01.2002 onwards @ 6% p.a. till payment.

12. The present Special Appeal is, accordingly, allowed in the aforesaid terms.

13. Consequently, pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of, accordingly.

      (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)         (Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)
          11.08.2023                    11.08.2023
Rahul